Main menu

Post navigation

Give ’em an olive branch, they’ll chop down the tree.

No, Earl, let the big, fat pumpkin-head roar. I think that was Howard Stern’s name for Limbaugh, as he mocked Rush for ripping a page out of Stern’s own playbook of outrageousness-for-ratings.

Dem pols would tell Earl, let Limbaugh grow more successful. Let him become even more of a figurehead for the GOP.

Fox News once claimed that its overtaking CNN in the ratings proved most Americans wanted their slant on news. They conveniently forgot that they still had only a tiny share of the larger viewing public. And now that MSNBC has moved to the left and gives Fox a run for the money in various time slots, the truth has been revealed that there’s a strong constituency for any staunchly partisan mob, whlle the larger public is just, well, moderate.

The Dems want nothing more than to portray the entire GOP as being dominated by the Limbaugh mob. That’s an effective ploy, and it’s a solid move, given that the GOP leadership is emulating him in Washington by smacking down Obama’s olive branches unless they can have the whole tree.

Fox News is not staunchly partisan. Rush Limbaugh is. Rob, you need to make your distinctions more carefully. Fox News was successful because they do indeed provide at least SOME viewpoint from the right, a viewpoint more or less totally shut out at CNN, and CLEARLY shut out at Olbermann&Co. What’s more, overall MSNBC still lags quite a bit behind Fox News in market share, Rob, so that makes your point less valid.

And did you really just call Rush a big fat pumpkin head?

David Long

Diane – You do not disappoint, ever. I believe Rob attributed that moniker to Howard Stern, which one can discern by re-reading what he wrote (time consuming, I know). Personally, I call him the Hindenburg like (as in fat Nazi gas-bag) Rush Limbaugh.

Rob Asghar

>>MSNBC still lags quite a bit behind Fox News in market share, Rob, so that makes your point less valid.<<
Hadn't realized the difference is so pronounced. So based on how the American public wants an alternative to liberally biased media, I'm going to guess that Fox News has, what, 45% of the market share for televised news? I'm sure it'd be 50% if more people had cable, but I'm still guessing that Fox must have at least 40%. Am I in the ballpark..?

Diane Schrader

No, David, it’s right there in black and white. I know the subtleties of the English language escape you as we can always tell from your only semi-literate posts. However, Rob told Earl “let the big, fat pumpkin-head roar” — and then explained that he picked up that term from Stern. It’s crystal clear. He used it, then explained where he got it. Good lord, I can’t believe I’m having to explain something so simple. Especially considering that I was just poking a little fun at Rob for name-calling.

As for ratings, this is from an AP story two days ago:

NEW YORK (AP) CNN is poised to finish March third in the prime-time weeknight ratings behind Fox News Channel and MSNBC, the first time this has ever happened for the channel that pioneered the cable news genre nearly three decades ago…

…Fox remains on a mountain above its two closest competitors, with its prime-time audience in March more than that of MSNBC and CNN combined. “The O’Reilly Factor” has done particularly well, keeping more of its postelection audience than anything else on CNN and MSNBC.

Through Wednesday, Fox was averaging 2.73 million prime-time viewers in March. MSNBC had 1.16 million and CNN had 1.14 million. The March ratings period ends Friday, and it’s doubtful CNN will be able to overcome MSNBC.

Diane Schrader

Further media question? Are CBS, NBC and ABC’s nightly newscasts now largely irrelevant?

Rob Asghar

What’s the metric for “relevance”?

Rob Asghar

And, as a follow-up, how can the liberal media be both irrelevant *and* damaging?

David Long

Diane – No one with a functioning brain considers FOX (Faux) news to be anything more than a clown stuffed mini car at a circus of the absurd. To state that they are at the top of the ratings is like saying that “Dancing with the Stars” is the highest rated Medical show on TV. Just because they can get a bunch of mindless mouth breathing, NASCAR watching, light-beer drinking, Wonder Bread eaters who call the third grade their “Senior Year” to watch them, doesn’t make them credible.

Diane Schrader

Sigh. Yes, I could also whip off a chain of insults toward the folks who watch MSNBC, and its parade of liberal hosts. What does that get us? And along with your thoughtless drivel, David, again you get it wrong. No one is saying “Dancing with the Stars” is the highest rated medical show on TV. However, Fox News is, in fact, at the top of the ratings. So no, it’s not “like” that at all. Furthermore, Fox News also offers liberal commentary and discussion. Is it okay for people with functioning brains to watch it THEN? Good grief.

Rob, the three “dinosaur” newscasts are of course no longer the sum total of the MSM. My question really related to how big a part of it they still are. However, if you will look back you will see that I haven’t really been making an argument for the “damaging” part — just the “liberal” part. In point of fact, what the liberal part has done is bring forth alternatives. In any event, if all the MSM were as relevant as Katie Couric, for example, then I guess we wouldn’t be too worried about how biased the media is.

Again, I am just wondering if, in the CNN/Fox News/MSNBC era, the three old guys still pack much punch. I’m not saying yes or no. I was asking for opinions.

David Long

Diane – You could hurtle similar insults at MSNBC, the difference is that yours would be meaningless. By doing so, you would cement the “Limbaugh uber allus” mentality that has infected the Right-wing and their mouthpieces (Fox and the Moonie owned “Washington time”, to name a couple) and made them just the pitiful husks of a failed and abused dogma sitting upon their mounts tilting at any left leaning windmills they come upon. FOX news is rubbish

Diane Schrader

David, when you actually have a thought of any substance to present, feel free to chime in again. By the way, one generally “hurls insults” rather than “hurtles” them, although one could hurtle down the road at high speed, hurling insults all along, I suppose. And if you’re going to use a foreign phrase you should spell it correctly. I know you don’t like it when you are corrected, but surely even you can see that if you cannot even articulate your thoughts–really can’t even get off a paragraph without errors–one must question your educational attainment… which does somewhat devalue your opinion.

David Long

Diane – I wondered how possibly anal compulsive you could be, so I planted several “mistakes” for you to uncover and obsess about. Congratulations, you found a couple, but if you were actually good at it you would have found the other two. I have a definite feeling that you probably belong to an ex-wives club, unless you were able to find someone who would cower at the sound of your voice in a lap dog kind of way.

Diane Schrader

ha ha ha ha

That’s a good one, David. You PLANTED mistakes. In ALL your posts? Wow, that’s a pretty good April Fool’s Joke.

Emphasis on FOOL.

Diane Schrader

Oh and… there were MORE than two more mistakes.

Ha ha I’m still laughing. Best laugh I’ll have on this April Fool’s Day, I’m sure.

David Long

No Diane, just in that post. I just wanted to illustrate how twisted and controlling you are. I’m not bothered by a slip of a comma, or that I might use the wrong spelling of an identical sounding word when corresponding in these forums. That you are so bothered, speaks volumes about your psychotic nature and compulsion to be correct, even when your positions have been repudiated and negated by the exigencies of history. You may now let you head explode.

Diane Schrader

My head is merely exploding from laughter, David. I do notice your posts looking a little more nifty lately. Unfortunately, your inability to articulately debate a point hasn’t really improved. My positions have been repudiated and negated by the exigencies of history? How exactly have Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Radical Islam, etc. been shown superior to the great “American experiment” in a Constitutional, democratic republic; a federation of sovereign states. This has been the most successful, wealth-producing, liberty-protecting and life-enhancing form of government in centuries. (Might just be why people want to come here, you think?) To the extent that we keep it, we’ll do great. To the extent we pi$$ on it… not so much. (Benjamin Franklin said something along these same lines in 1787.) Limited federal government is key to that success. And that has been my primary position on matters political, and history is on my side–the aforementioned “alternative” forms of governance have produced untold human suffering, poverty, and death.

You may now let your head open up and get some fresh air.

David Long

Diane – In the patrio-jingoistic world of we are right the rest of the world is wrong, all you do is wrap yourself in the flag, strike a heroic pose, spout some Jr. High history textbook quotes and somehow think that is reality. There is only one thing worse than the propagandists who push the idea our excrement don’t stink because we are “Amuricons”, and that is the shallow people who swallow it, pronounce it delicious and then try to projectile vomit it onto the rest of us.
People of your mentality actually believe that god made only one mistake and that is when he put our oil under their sand (that can be applied to any resource) and that we have a perfect right to seal it fair and square from those savage sub-Humans.

It is your unfettered free market that has driven the greed that has allowed 1/2 of all wealth in this country to be concentrated in the pockets of around 4000 individuals, who actually have the power in our Potemkin democracy. The autocrats rule and make you think you are the source of power and like a cheaply bough automaton, you blindly do their bidding. Toss out a few more slogans and lets see how they fly in the face of reality.

Diane Schrader

If it is true that half of all the wealth in this country is concentrated in only 4000 pockets — and since you cite no source for this, I acknowledge it could have come from your obviously-fevered imagination — but let’s say it’s true! That means that only half the wealth in this country is allowing millions of people to live lifestyles of comfort and abundance that much of the world can only dream of — wealth that allows ignorant folks like you to sit on your couch and type into your keyboard attacking the very principles that have allowed you the freedom to do just that. If you ever got off that couch and saw some other countries you might appreciate what you have a bit more.

So your alternative is to “fetter” the free market and see where the wealth concentrates then? As I said, David, history has not been very kind to that point of view. You cannot point to a SINGLE INSTANCE where “fettered free markets” have produced wealth and comfort like free markets have right here. What’s more, there is something to be said for a system that allows simpletons like you to criticize it without tossing their a$$es in jail. Freedom and liberty have been protected in some other places and times, certainly, but again in this country we do an okay job on that too, particularly in comparison with current Communist and Radical Islam-based regimes. It is not jingoistic to point these things out; it’s REALITY that a second-grader could probably tell you. Why are YOU having trouble grasping it?

As for the social assumptions you make about those who support free markets (that they find citizens of other countries to be savage subhumans)… it is more of the utter nonsense by which your posts are characterized. (And by the way, last I looked, we weren’t stealing oil, we were buying it, but perhaps you really did mean we were “sealing” it, again things aren’t really clear when they come out of your keyboard.)

David Long

Diane – “Forbes” magazine, in their richest 400 Americans issue, stated that all of the 400 richest were billionaires and multi-billionaires, with many billionaires not making that august list because they were not rich enough. They also stated (proudly) that these 400 controlled 1/3 of all the wealth in the nation. Now, if we take those poorer billionaires and add to them the poor unfortunates who only control mere hundreds of millions of dollars, say the next 3600 richest Americans, it is not hard the imagine that they control 1/6 of all wealth and when added to the 1/3 controlled by the 400 adds up to 1/2 of all the wealth. Now, you seem to think that this might be a good idea because there is so much left for the odd 330,000,000 of the rest of us. I hate to bust your bubble, but that remainder is also skewed toward a smaller group controlling the bulk of that amount also.

David Long

Diane – (to continue)
So we have a tiny, obscenely wealthy group of people who control so much power that they can invest a relatively wealthy class of people and near-do-well wannabes to act as a buffer between themselves and the massive bulk of the middle-class and below. People so won over by the myth of the American dream because they have been allowed a few crumbs from their table, that they act without question to perpetuate the myth and carry on the class warfare the ultra rich 4000, or so, need for the shills like you to wage against the lower classes so that the focus is not on their rapine accumulation of wealth and power. You are doing the job they require, you are being used by them and you have been purchased for a song. The sad fact is that you are so blinded by the myth and propaganda that your dishonesty is not even being recognized by you. It reminds me of the thief who was so loathsome that he would steal money from his own pocket and not catch himself doing it.

David Long

Diane ( In conclusion)
If it fact, these 4000 or so Americans control 1/2 of all the wealth in the country, then they should be shouldering 1/2 of the tax burden, but we know that isn’t happening. The fact that they don’t is a measure of how much power they have and how fixed the entire so called “Free Market” actually is. There is no free market. The system is set up to funnel wealth to the top and keeping it there. What we have is socialism for the rich and blood sucking free enterprise for the rest of us. Time for an adjustment, both in the way we do business, and in the minds of people like you who talk with flag waving certainty but haven’t really got a clue.

Diane Schrader

Good lord. Clearly, class warfare is on YOUR mind. The system is set up to funnel wealth to the top and keep it there? And which system would you prefer, that does NOT do that? But that begs the question. The truth is, our system is set up so that the “rest of us” have a shot at great wealth, too. We are FREE to pursue what we wish. And most ALL of us in this country live in such relative wealth (compared to the rest of the world) that it’s almost ridiculous. I’m sure being such an avid reader you’ve seen the statistics about how many televisions, cell phones, computers etc. etc. etc. are in even the “poorest” homes in America. I am of course not stating that there not poor people in this country. I am stating that poor people in this country are generally quite a bit better off than LOTS of people in LOTS of other countries. Again, you can continue to foam at the mouth about the rich people who “control” things — but the “adjustments” you have in mind are going to make things a whole lot worse for a whole lot more people… AGAIN, as history has clearly shown.

David Long

Diane – Even the poorest Cuban gets better health care than our poorest citizens, so your fiction is just that. He may not have a cell phone or computer, but when he needs it, he gets more treatment than many of our citizens in the rural areas of Mississippi. We are the poorest providers of health care among the industrialized nations too. We may appear to be more advanced, but as a percentage of the wealth we spew out for health care, we get very little in return for what we lay out to satisfy the stockholders in our medical industries. You really don’t have a clue, yet you continue to make a fool of yourself by reciting societal myths and propaganda. Have you EVER given a moment’s thought that what you believe just might be a distortion of reality, or dare I say it, wrong?

Diane Schrader

Back at ya, David, back at ya. The poorest Cuban gets better health care than our poorest citizens? And you know this from your extensive investigation of Cuban health care, and your longtime affiliation with citizens of rural Mississippi? Do YOU have a clue what the he** you are talking about? Give me a freaking break. “Getting” care and having access to care are obviously two different things. But since our health care system is freely accessed by very poor people including illegal aliens, there is indeed access and I think the health care workers providing care in those clinics/emergency rooms/whatever might just take exception to your portrayal of their care. Furthermore, look to litigation attorneys (big time supporters of the Democratic party) as perhaps the largest cause of spiraling health care costs. When doctors have to pay big money to protect themselves from idiot lawsuits, that’s going to be passed down to us (through the insurance companies). The issue is far more complex than you indicate. Talk about myths–citizens in this country have access to health care; it might not be the clinic YOU would want to patronize, but they do have access. And making that more affordable to the poorest people is a goal far better reached by local communities working without federal interference.

David Long

Diane – Right now 47 million Americans and increasing, are without any health insurance at all and many who pay through the nose are denied needed care because such activity would negatively affect the bottom line considerations of those who are not only the major beneficiaries of our advanced medical technology, but also profit from this rationed system. These are the stockholders of our medical industry, who would rather have those who can’t participate in the blood sucking wealth transfer to the top, perpetually suck at the hind teat of treatment options.

Those excluded have few options to take proactive care to see to it that problems are caught early enough to be effectively taken care of before becoming critical. Even the marginally insured can’t get the type of screening necessary to prevent later problems unless they fight tooth and nail to get it. Your solution is the cruelest kind of rationing based of the beneficence of a system engineered to make a small number of people very rich and to create an underclass you can blame for all your societal complaints.

All of the money being spent by all the insured in this country is providing substandard and non-existent health care that a one-payer all inclusive Canadian type system could provide, FOR LESS. That you continue to argue for and defend a system that has greed and cruelty as its core values, makes anything more you have to offer on the subject worthless.

Diane Schrader

Okey-dokey. Since you have deemed anything I offer to be worthless (or basically anything anyone says who disagrees with you), I trust you will no longer waste your time responding to my worthless posts.

David Long

Diane – After reading your salute to bad ideas in Rob Asghar’s latest post, I can only assume that anything you have to say about anything is only going to reflect your dogma driven, infantile mindset that won’t be satisfied until you have made wearing Jack-boots and brown shirts popular again. You cannot respond reasonably to any one’s post who is not as narrow minded and willing to trash the concept of freedom as you seem to be. The pity is that if there was a just and loving god, it would be more like those you hate than those you support. It would, as a gesture of its love of Humanity, no doubt make every effort to see to it that people of your mentality did not receive the “blessing” of children whose minds you would only pollute in your blind ignorance and intolerance.